The many countries of Central and South America have experienced many revolutionary movements during the past two hundred years. While these movements have differed in their ideological foundations, membership, and methods they have all came about as a result of a small number of common preconditions. The presence of all four of these preconditions is not necessary for revolution to break out, however, and there are additional conditions that are specific to each country which contribute to the formation of revolutionary movements.

In general a necessary precondition for revolution is the belief that needed reform can no longer be pursued through the current system of government. For armed struggle to occur the ones doing the fighting must have no other means of political voice. In the case of Central and South America, imperialism mostly on the part of the United States, has caused this belief and thus has lead to the formation of various revolutionary movements. In the widely circulated 30 Questions to a Tupamaro the unnamed guerilla being interviewed states that “foreign intervention can constitute a political advantage.” (Castro p.159). What the revolutionary means is that interference by foreign countries in the affairs of a state can produce and aid revolutionary movements by providing them with an explicit and very public enemy which can attract more fighters to the cause. Augusto César Sandino hit the nail on the head with his statement regarding his home country of Nicaragua;
“Deeply convinced that the grotesque yankee imperialism, day by day is infiltrating the domestic and foreign policy of Central America, turning our cowardly leaders into mummies—the vibrating spirit of the Indohispanic race becomes at this time the Autonomist Army of Central America to save its racial dignity, flinging militarily, politically and economically away from its territory the Wall Street bankers, even if to do this we will have to leave our bodies dead, lying face up towards the sun.” (“To Abolish the Monroe Doctrine” Proclamation)
According to Richard Gott, a British journalist, the CIA sponsored ousting of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1954 set off a chain of events which “turned officers from the army into left-wing guerillas.”(Castro p.99) Arbenz’s replacement, Castillo Armas, incited resentment among the peasents by “returning to the big landowners virtually all of the estimated 1.5 million acres expropriated by the Arbenz regime.”(Castro p.95) The United States’ toppling of a government that the Guatemalan people had freely elected led many of them to become convinced that armed struggle was the only way to preserve their political voice. A militant of Argentina’s PRT-ERP explained his views on the revolution in the country; “The bourgeoisie is a junior partner of U.S. imperialism, there is no national bourgeoisie to promote independent capitalist development; the fight is for socialism.” (Castro p.166). The lack of a nationalistic backbone on the part of the ruling class has led this person to pursue, through armed struggle, the removal of that ruling class from power. Carlos Marighella, founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Brazil, went so far as to say that “North American imperialism is [the revolutionaries’] principle enemy and [they] must transform the struggle against it into a national liberation” (Castro p.149). In Marighella’s mind, the first spark of his revolution is the anger over imperialism and its’ results.

Some of the results of imperialism in many countries fall into their own category of preconditions for revolution. However, this issue can also exist in countries that do not have explicit problems regarding imperialism. The struggle for control of land is such an issue. Many of the complaints regarding imperialism come from the protection by governments of North American companies which own vast amounts of land and exploit those who work it. Such was one of Fidel Castro’s complaints prior to the Cuban Revolution; “85% of the small farmers in Cuba pay rent and live under the constant threat of being dispossessed from the land that they cultivate. More than half the best cultivated land belongs to foreigners” (Fidel Castro: "History Will Absolve Me"). This lack of ownership on the part of the peasants has given rise to numerous revolutions in Central and South America. However this land issue is not exclusively a result of imperialism. In Mexico the 1910 Zapatista movement centered on land reform. Emiliano Zapata’s Plan de Ayala called for the expropriation of “the third part of those monopolies from the powerful proprietors of them, with prior indemnization, in order that the pueblos and citizens of Mexico may obtain ejidos, colonies, and foundations for pueblos, or fields for sowing or laboring” (Plan of Ayala, 1911, by Emiliano Zapata). The possession of most of Mexico’s land by such a small minority of its population was the major cause the Zapatistas’ revolution. The guerilla priest of Colombia, Camilo Torres, called for agrarian reform as the first objective of his Platform of the United Front of the Colombian People. “The land will belong to the one who directly farms it. No land will be purchased. What is considered necessary for the common good of the people will be expropriated without compensation” (Castro p.106). It is logical to say that agrarian reform’s position at the top of his list of demands denotes its importance as a motivating factor for the formation of the ELN, of which Torres was a part. Along with Zapatistas in Mexico and the ELN in Colombia, land reform surfaces as one of the major objectives of the MIR in Peru. Its founder, Luis de la Puente, called for “the immediate return of land usurped from the indigenous communities [and] the expropriation of large landed estates” (Castro p.121). Another priest named Clodovis Boff, wrote of the struggle for land in Brazil; “What do these poor people want? For them the reign of God means a piece of land” (Brazilian voices of Liberation Theology). According to Thomas C. Wright, “in Bolivia, where peasants had received land in the 1952 revolution, Fidelismo had little impact” (Wright p.44). Because the major issue in that country had already been solved, the success of the Cuban revolution did not cause further conflict as it did in many other countries in Latin America. Like imperialism, the lack of ownership of land by the peasant class and its’ monopolization by the elite is a recurring pattern in revolutionary movements in Latin America.

Coupled with the struggle for land in the causation of revolutionary movements is the economic and political disparity between the poverty stricken peasant class, which constitutes the majority, and the wealthy elite which constitutes the minority. The lack of political power on the part of the lower classes gives way to a desire to topple the current system. It is difficult to find interviews given or statements made by revolutionaries that do not contain discussions of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. The 1910 Mexican Revolution’s many causes included this issue of class conflict:
“What bonds or sympathies could possibly exist between these classes and the various governments, considering that the latter, instead of lending them some support, have burdened them daily with more taxes of all kinds in order to satisfy the ambitions of thousands of men of the privileged classes who, with no decent title to it, have proposed to live at the expense of the nation?” (Otero Critique of Mexico, 1847)

Class was also an issue for Fidel Castro; “You fail the poor wretch who steals because he is hungry; but none of the hundreds who steal from the Government has ever spent a night in jail; you dine with them at the end of the year in some elegant place and they enjoy your respect” (Fidel Castro: "History Will Absolve Me"). Castro refers to preferential treatment for the upper class by the Cuban government and this injustice is another reason for his fight. The class struggle causation also applies to Sendero Luminoso in Peru. Its’ founder, Abimael Guzman, commented on the situation of the peasants in Peru and how their plight influenced him to organize what would become the Shining Path. “The peasants from Ayacucho are very poor. They endure the oppressive semi-feudal burden. I saw people working as slaves on ranches” (1993 Interview with Abimael Guzman).

Additionally, the fact that the peasants tend to be members of indigenous groups and the wealthy elite of Spanish descent draws additional feelings of resentment among the lower class toward those in power. However the primary motivation towards revolutionary behavior among indigenous populations comes not simply from resentment of continuing control by those of Spanish descent but from a desire to maintain autonomy from the central government with regards to the practice of cultural tradition. The modern Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico is a good example of this reason for revolution. On the day the Zapatistas kicked off their offensive, they issued a statement saying “We are the product of 500 years of struggle” (Zapatistas! Documents of the New Mexican Revolution). The five hundred year struggle is a reference to the length of time since the Spanish conquest of the native civilizations occurred. At its heart, the Zapatista movement in Chiapas is an indigenous movement set on gaining political power for the indigenous population. According to Alberto Flores Galindo the rebellion of Tupac Amaru was a struggle fought by the natives “to drive out the Europeans and restore an Inca monarchy” (Castro p.1). Nilo Cayuquo articulates the train of thought shared by indigenous groups in Latin America; “We were developing our culture and a way of life in harmony with nature, this is what was happening when the Spaniards arrived . . . We want to live in peace, but we want to be respected” (Interview With Nilo Cayuquo, a Mapuche Indian from Argentina). The desire for respect for their culture and the entitlement they feel from living in the region for thousands of years leads them to come into conflict with any government that seeks to exploit or otherwise control them.

The lack of political control for indigenous peoples is part of another type or revolutionary precondition. The domination by a government which does not allow for any control by the people leads to revolution in Latin America as it tends to do everywhere else. Whether it be a military dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a corrupt democracy the common result is the formation of revolutionary groups who oppose it. The information bulletin of the FPMR in Chile stated, “The people, together with important sectors of the opposition, understood that it was necessary to rebel against the institutionalization of fascism as the only means of ending the dictatorship”(Armed Wing of the People & Dagger). Many years earlier in Mexico the situation leading up to the revolution fits into this problem. “This system, certainly original in a republic, of presenting the people with their rulers without first consulting them and obtaining their consent, has necessarily resulted in the emergence of picked officials whose least concern is with the welfare of the people” (Otero Critique of Mexico, 1847). A Bolivian author stated the basic concern of her people following a recent coup, “The truth is that the Bolivian people are tired of living under military dictatorships” (Bolivia — the struggle continues: an interview with Domitila Barrios de Chungara). The presence of tyrannical governments in Latin American countries has led to movements being formed to oust them.